Monday, February 04, 2013

The windy city is to die for

Reading through the comments at Randall Parker's Parapundit, I see the proprietor himself musing on murder, specifically Illinois' high rate of unsolved homicides:
I would have expected the rest of Illinois (55.4%) to dilute the state-level effects of Chicago. But no.
In 2009, the most recent year for which I've gathered detailed homicide data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, the entire state of Illinois logged 477 non-negligent murders. That same year, the city of Chicago alone recorded 459. Over 96% of the state's killing takes place in a city that holds around one-quarter (depending on the city proper is counted) of its total population.

Wow. This is presumably an extreme but informative example of how urban/rural differences are probably a lot more important when it comes to determining violent crime rates than state-to-state differences are.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

In 2009, only 15 whites were murdered in Chicago.

page 39:

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf

If we assume that every murder victim outside of Chicago was white, that would add 18 more murder victims for a state total of 33 murders. That makes 33 murders out of 12.7 million. That is about 2.x per 100k population, about the European average.

Wow. This is presumably an extreme but informative example of how urban/rural differences are probably a lot more important when it comes to determining violent crime rates than state-to-state differences are.

Not so sure. The state of Illinois is pretty much all white except for the city of Chicago itself, which is about 45% white. A few counties are less than 90% white, but not many.

Illinois has 12.7 million, Chicago has 2.7 million, just over 1/6 of the state total.

Randall Parker said...

That's incredible. Maybeit also tells us something useful: The rest of Illinois (except perhaps some near suburbs) might be an incredibly safe place. I think this easy to deduce:

1) Chicago has 2.7 million people. So it has a murder rate of 16.4 per 100,000. Excellent places have murder rates below 2 per 100k btw.

2) Illinois has a population of 12.875 million. Minus the Chicago population the rest of the state is about 10 million.

3) If the rest of the state really has only about 20 murders per year that would be .2 murders per 100k. That sounds hard to believe.

4) Hawaii has the lowest state-level murder rate of 1.2 per 100k followed by VT and NH at 1.3.

Anonymous said...


1) Chicago has 2.7 million people. So it has a murder rate of 16.4 per 100,000. Excellent places have murder rates below 2 per 100k btw.


Okay, but at 15 whites murdered out of a population of 2.7 million, that is only 0.5 rate for white victims. So, Chicago is excellent if you are white. If you count only the 45% that are white, then the rate of 15 per million is still very low. It is about as good as Vermont and Hawaii.

My take away from this data is that the US is safe if you are white.

Randall Parker said...

Anonymous, how about an original pseudonym?

White murder rate: I'd like to know how it varies.

I'd also like to know how general white victimization rates vary.

silly girl said...

Anonymous, how about an original pseudonym?


fine.

Fun video of western NY residents' reaction to gun control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1SzjHPFGw

Watch the whole thing but especially beginning at 23:20.

Audacious Epigone said...

Randall,

That does sound incredulously low, but not by an enormous factor--Iowa's 'white' (including Hispanics) murder rate is 1.14, Minnesota's is 0.91, and New Hampshire's is 0.86.

Silly girl,

So you've just been shrouded in mystery for awhile? I was worried you'd left me.

Noah172 said...

The state of Illinois is pretty much all white except for the city of Chicago itself, which is about 45% white. A few counties are less than 90% white, but not many.

Chicago: 32% white, 33% black, 29% Hispanic, 6% Asian and other

Rest of Illinois: 73% white, 9% black, 13% Hispanic, 6% Asian and other (numbers rounded)

The Collar Counties, Chicago's suburbs and exurbs, have booming Hispanic populations (and booming, though still small, black populations). The St. Louis suburbs on the Illinois side have significant black numbers (think East St. Louis, a mini-Detroit).

The latest census showed that rural Illinois is more like 80-90% white than 90+.

odinslounge said...

The rest of the state doesn't bring down the murder numbers, but according to the liberals in charge they are the ones responsible for raising the numbers. It's the people selling guns in the surrounding areas that make their way into the city are to blame, it's certainly NOT the people using them to kill. Definitely not them.

Jasper said...

I agree with the orginal post. It echoes is what I was saying in my comments to the January 23 post.

You want to the most accurate picture of what is happening then try to get a local as you can. Looking at cities gives you a more accurate picture than looking at states as a whole.

Looking at neighborhoods within cities will give you a more accurate picture than looking at cities as a whole.

Yeah there are lots of murders in Chicago, but if you look at the neighborhoods in which these murders are taking place you'll see that the murders are concentrated in certain specific neighborhoods.

City more accurate than state.

Neighborhood more accurate than city.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the Chicago numbers are included in the FBI statistics--my recollection is that their recordkeeping does not meet federal standards.
I am sure East St. Louis has more than 18 murders a year and I am sure other garden spots like Alton, Rockford, Peoria, Joliet, etc. also have significant numbers of murders

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

While the low non-Chicago numbers are difficult to believe, the exclusion of Chicago from the state totals seems even more incredulous. I assume that the Chicago total includes the entire surrounding metro area including cities like Joliet, but I'm not sure.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure what the story is with the 2009 numbers--I looked at the 2010 report and it does show the City of Chicago with 432 and 198 in all other listed cities, of which 33 were in East St. louis and Harvey. The bottom line is that although the discrepancy is not quite as amazing as the 2009 numbers seem to indicate, Chicago and a few rundown small cities and suburbs totaling 20 to 25% of the state population are the sites of more than 705 of all illinois murders.

Anonymous said...

"My take away from this data is that the US is safe if you are white."

...and living among white people.

If you're white in an area that is currently being "integrated" then it is *extremely* unsafe.

If i had to guess from anecdatal experience i'd say the highest victim rate of all would be white people in previously all-white bluecollar

(and since section 8 this may become or have already become true of whitecollar also)

neighborhoods who are in the process of being "integrated" with black people.

Second highest would be black vs black.

America is only safe for white people when they can afford to or are allowed to live among themselves or have guns and the ruling class wants to both prevent white people having the financial or legal means to separate themselves and to take away their guns as well.

The ruling class are *entirely* malign.

Anonymous said...

Further to the above i was thinking about how it would be possible to show it with stats.

The way it works with migration - the dynamics may play out differently with section 8 - is the bridegehead is almost all young men and they concentrate in one section of the neigborhood for a sense of security - so in that spot they're the majority of young men - and if they're from a violent population then there is a lot of violence particularly over access to females.

As the violence, both male-male and male-female is concentrated among the young, say 13-24, what happens is parents of younger children i.e. those coming into the danger age, are the ones who start to move away. Over the course of ten years or so all the families that can move out do move out. The only families with young children who stay are those who can't afford to move.

So what happens is the age demographics become completely distorted. The white population at this point is still the overall majority in that neighborhood but they are a minority among the young.

So based on anecdatal experience i would predict that the highest victim rates would occur where you have a population with a high rate of violence who are the minority in a neighborhood (and therefore have a feeling of threat from being a minority) but who at the same time are the majority of young males.

(I don't think this is just a black-white thing i think it's the standard bluecollar immigration dynamic if the migrating population is at least as violent as the original population.)

I don't know if this is possible but the target metrics for neighborhoods like that might be something like 2/3 white total population but only 1/3 below 30.

My guess (based solely on anecdata so maybe wrong) is that most of the white victims contained within the FBI site's stats over the last 50 years will have been in those kind of environments during the years when the remaining white 1/3 (under 30) disappeared with a peak somewhere between 1/3 and 1/6 maybe.

By the time white people are down to say 1/3 overall they are mostly elderly and can hide indoors so the number of white victims goes down.